6 ms·

>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/88539524861208576

>I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never once published anything that has been proven false. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/885395248612085760 He has helped launder edited material from Russian state sponsored hackers in the past. That is one instance, should I find more?

AndyMcConachie 6y ago
The only conclusion I can raise from people like yourself who argue Julian Assange be imprisoned is that you welcome ignorance. You genuinely wish to not know what powerful people are behaving in this world. And that conclusion is in many ways scarier to me than the fact that he is being prosecuted for the crime of journalism.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  This is a ridiculously bad faith allegation. Is that really the only conclusion you can raise?
  - nkurz 6y ago
    You're right, but your argument would be stronger if you could offer some alternatives. What other conclusions would you suggest?
  - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
    It is amazing how acidic this topic is. You can't document Assange's drifting from seemingly neutral leader of a leak network staffed by individuals across the world to a lone operator of a clearly biased outfit, without people throwing their accounts into the fire. Making personal attacks like a fella just did here minutes ago. I didn't think so many people would be saying "Russia anything is lies!" so vehemently given the activist/journalist/governmental sources documenting Kremlin's role in fostering relations with Wikileaks while spinning up their own personas like Guccifer 2.0 to act as fronts for the distribution of hacked data to Assange.
himinlomax 6y ago
Was the info false, or do you just object to the sourcing?
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  Yes the info was false. >A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged. One document number, when checked against CNAIPIC’s system, reportedly corresponded to a wholly unrelated matter. The remaining real documents didn’t seem to have come from CNAIPIC either. Instead, police were apparently investigating “a small IT company that has worked for CNAIPIC in the past and that apparently some of the stolen data were on a machine they took to repair in Rome.” There was an immediate suspicion that it was “a giant op by the police to [discredit] anonymous and to tarnish our reputation and credibility.”
  - monocasa 6y ago
    A) The CNAIPIC leaks weren't by wikileaks B) Why do we trust the CNAIPIC to tell the truth that they weren't their docs?
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    So I did a brief Google search and it seems that, just like monocasa mentioned, this was not published by Wikileaks. Are you going to change your stance or are you going to stand by your incorrect, if not slanderous, claim?
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      This is why they invent new greenbean accounts; they can lie without "consequences".
  - xtracto 6y ago
    You are very invested to discredit Wikileaks uh? I hate when throwaway accounts do these kind of things, it reeks as propaganda machine.
raxxorrax 6y ago
The whole Russian story was a scam. We have documents saying that is was told to abuse FISA powers. Not that I like the persons it was employed against, but it is far larger than watergate if we had honest discussion about it. If you still talk about Russia, you have been fooled immensely and for me it is beyond comprehension how anyone could earnestly believe that story arc. You are spreading lies.
- AndyMcConachie 6y ago
  But it worked. Look at how easily we can be manipulated once we're told we're under attack by a foreign power. Propaganda works. James Comey knew this just as well as Senator McCarthy did. They didn't even need to change the protagonist.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    The recent uprising of Marxist groups, such as Antifa affiliates or BLM, stems from universities and other institutions being infiltrated by Marxist propagandists a couple generations ago. Senator McCarthy was correct. BLM founder stating she is a “trained Marxist”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc Edit: I’d appreciate if anyone could comment on why they flagged this — it’s a genuine post with a video of the BLM founder referring to herself in those terms. Discussing how Senator McCarthy was correct about institutions being infiltrated seems topical and relevant to someone commenting on him.
    - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
      I'm sorry are you totally taken by crazed conspiracies of marxists roaming the streets? Can I ask why users like you suddenly started adopting the word as an object of obsession just as recently as a few weeks ago? Specifically when did it enter your vocabulary? No offense but its already a joke with people blaming Marxists for taking down Aunt Jemima[1], and here you are doing the word salad thing "BLM antifa marxists in the shadows woo." [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hcps06/the_marxists_cancelled_real_history_and_replaced/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hcps06/the_marx...
nickysielicki 6y ago
A one-off tweet from a wikileaks twitter account about some other organization publishing something questionable is not at all the same as the document dumps that wikileaks publishes and puts their name behind. I'm obviously talking about the latter. I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with.
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  >I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep. When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank transfers of billions of dollars. Assange's selective leaking based on his biases has been documented for years: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... >The court records, placed under seal by a Manhattan federal court and obtained by the Daily Dot through an anonymous source, show in detail how a group of hacktivists breached the Syrian government’s networks on the eve of the country’s civil war and extracted emails about major bank transactions the Syrian regime was hurriedly making amid a host of economic sanctions. In the spring of 2012, most of the emails found their way into a WikiLeaks database. >But one set of emails in particular didn’t make it into the cache of documents published by WikiLeaks in July 2012 as “The Syria Files,” despite the fact that the hackers themselves were ecstatic at their discovery. The correspondence, which WikiLeaks has denied withholding, describes “more than” €2 billion ($2.4 billion, at current exchange rates) moving from the Central Bank of Syria to Russia’s VTB Bank. We know this because the courts showed the data that Assange personally held back.
  - dijit 6y ago
    Ugh, don't make me do this: Selectively releasing documents is not the same as releasing something later proven to be false, which is what the GP asserted. FWIW you could play devils advocate here and say that wikileaks could not independently verify the omitted things; but I'm not going to go there because it's conjecture. Just as your suggestion that it's collusion with Russia, however likely, is also conjecture.
masteranza 6y ago
1. Why is your account just 2 weeks old? 2. Apparently the testimony is based on the story told by who are trying hard to get their sentences reduced. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/25/assa-j25.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/25/assa-j25.html
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  > Why is your account just 2 weeks old? It was made then. This was a very dumb question. One that tells more about where the person asking it is coming from than what could possibly be put into the answer itself. What did you expect? "Oh yes I made this account for the purposes of manipulating public opinion about Assange in this specific thread. Muahaha and I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for someone looking at my profile creation date."
- jansan 6y ago
  1. Why is your account just 2 weeks old? Maybe he created his account two weeks ago? How old was your account two weeks after you created it?
- dang 6y ago
  New accounts are welcome on HN. Your comment breaks the site guideline against insinuation of astroturfing, shilling, etc. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do that. The rest of your comment is fine.
xorcist 6y ago
Hello fellow concerned citizen! Did you create that throwaway account in anticipation of yesterday's release of this story, or do you keep a stack to pick from?
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  Considering you only comment on my account age I'm assuming you've seen all my comments on my profile page as well. That you cannot address any of the comments and only wish to speak of my account age says volumes about where you are coming from.
  - dang 6y ago
    Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style and using HN for ideological battle? You've done these things repeatedly already, and it's not what this site is for. Indeed it's destructive of what the site is for, so we eventually have to ban accounts for doing it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. There are others in this thread arguing both sides of this debate respectfully and within the guidelines, so you needn't look far for good examples.
- dang 6y ago
  That crosses into personal attack and breaks HN's guideline against insinuations of astroturfing etc. You can't do those things here, regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dontfear 6y ago
He also tweeted this, saying the UFO story by the NY Times was a hoax. But then he deleted it- https://imgur.com/gallery/XubrM3g https://imgur.com/gallery/XubrM3g Despite the Pentagon and Navy’s recent actions, Julian was right — all of this is a sophisticated operation that uses bad actors to perpetuate disinformation. It is probably illegal but concerns national security with China.
twirlock 6y ago
Hey look, it's one of those spooks who actually eats all the spook dog food. Lol!
fwklein 6y ago
And how does that prove the published contents as false?

AndyMcConachie 6y ago

The only conclusion I can raise from people like yourself who argue Julian Assange be imprisoned is that you welcome ignorance. You genuinely wish to not know what powerful people are behaving in this world. And that conclusion is in many ways scarier to me than the fact that he is being prosecuted for the crime of journalism.

enraged_camel 6y ago
This is a ridiculously bad faith allegation. Is that really the only conclusion you can raise?
- nkurz 6y ago
  You're right, but your argument would be stronger if you could offer some alternatives. What other conclusions would you suggest?
- thatlongthrow1 6y ago
  It is amazing how acidic this topic is. You can't document Assange's drifting from seemingly neutral leader of a leak network staffed by individuals across the world to a lone operator of a clearly biased outfit, without people throwing their accounts into the fire. Making personal attacks like a fella just did here minutes ago. I didn't think so many people would be saying "Russia anything is lies!" so vehemently given the activist/journalist/governmental sources documenting Kremlin's role in fostering relations with Wikileaks while spinning up their own personas like Guccifer 2.0 to act as fronts for the distribution of hacked data to Assange.

himinlomax 6y ago

Was the info false, or do you just object to the sourcing?

thatlongthrow1 6y ago
Yes the info was false. >A few hours later, the assessment worsened: a friendly source from CNAIPIC was telling them that some of the documents had been forged. One document number, when checked against CNAIPIC’s system, reportedly corresponded to a wholly unrelated matter. The remaining real documents didn’t seem to have come from CNAIPIC either. Instead, police were apparently investigating “a small IT company that has worked for CNAIPIC in the past and that apparently some of the stolen data were on a machine they took to repair in Rome.” There was an immediate suspicion that it was “a giant op by the police to [discredit] anonymous and to tarnish our reputation and credibility.”
- monocasa 6y ago
  A) The CNAIPIC leaks weren't by wikileaks B) Why do we trust the CNAIPIC to tell the truth that they weren't their docs?
- himinlomax 6y ago
  So I did a brief Google search and it seems that, just like monocasa mentioned, this was not published by Wikileaks. Are you going to change your stance or are you going to stand by your incorrect, if not slanderous, claim?
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    This is why they invent new greenbean accounts; they can lie without "consequences".
- xtracto 6y ago
  You are very invested to discredit Wikileaks uh? I hate when throwaway accounts do these kind of things, it reeks as propaganda machine.

raxxorrax 6y ago

The whole Russian story was a scam. We have documents saying that is was told to abuse FISA powers. Not that I like the persons it was employed against, but it is far larger than watergate if we had honest discussion about it. If you still talk about Russia, you have been fooled immensely and for me it is beyond comprehension how anyone could earnestly believe that story arc. You are spreading lies.

AndyMcConachie 6y ago
But it worked. Look at how easily we can be manipulated once we're told we're under attack by a foreign power. Propaganda works. James Comey knew this just as well as Senator McCarthy did. They didn't even need to change the protagonist.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  The recent uprising of Marxist groups, such as Antifa affiliates or BLM, stems from universities and other institutions being infiltrated by Marxist propagandists a couple generations ago. Senator McCarthy was correct. BLM founder stating she is a “trained Marxist”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpIIiBe7Wc Edit: I’d appreciate if anyone could comment on why they flagged this — it’s a genuine post with a video of the BLM founder referring to herself in those terms. Discussing how Senator McCarthy was correct about institutions being infiltrated seems topical and relevant to someone commenting on him.
  - thatlongthrow1 6y ago
    I'm sorry are you totally taken by crazed conspiracies of marxists roaming the streets? Can I ask why users like you suddenly started adopting the word as an object of obsession just as recently as a few weeks ago? Specifically when did it enter your vocabulary? No offense but its already a joke with people blaming Marxists for taking down Aunt Jemima[1], and here you are doing the word salad thing "BLM antifa marxists in the shadows woo." [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hcps06/the_marxists_cancelled_real_history_and_replaced/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hcps06/the_marx...

nickysielicki 6y ago

A one-off tweet from a wikileaks twitter account about some other organization publishing something questionable is not at all the same as the document dumps that wikileaks publishes and puts their name behind. I'm obviously talking about the latter. I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with.

thatlongthrow1 6y ago
>I think it says something that this is the best you can come up with. Hi I can basically see you sneering with a "gotcha" face through that text. Sorry but Assange's history of leak revisionism, favoring Russia specifically, is deep. When Assange was working with "Anon" who was really an FBI snitch, he accepted files hacked from Syria. When they were released they were missing information about Russia including bank transfers of billions of dollars. Assange's selective leaking based on his biases has been documented for years: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... >The court records, placed under seal by a Manhattan federal court and obtained by the Daily Dot through an anonymous source, show in detail how a group of hacktivists breached the Syrian government’s networks on the eve of the country’s civil war and extracted emails about major bank transactions the Syrian regime was hurriedly making amid a host of economic sanctions. In the spring of 2012, most of the emails found their way into a WikiLeaks database. >But one set of emails in particular didn’t make it into the cache of documents published by WikiLeaks in July 2012 as “The Syria Files,” despite the fact that the hackers themselves were ecstatic at their discovery. The correspondence, which WikiLeaks has denied withholding, describes “more than” €2 billion ($2.4 billion, at current exchange rates) moving from the Central Bank of Syria to Russia’s VTB Bank. We know this because the courts showed the data that Assange personally held back.
- dijit 6y ago
  Ugh, don't make me do this: Selectively releasing documents is not the same as releasing something later proven to be false, which is what the GP asserted. FWIW you could play devils advocate here and say that wikileaks could not independently verify the omitted things; but I'm not going to go there because it's conjecture. Just as your suggestion that it's collusion with Russia, however likely, is also conjecture.

masteranza 6y ago

1. Why is your account just 2 weeks old? 2. Apparently the testimony is based on the story told by who are trying hard to get their sentences reduced. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/25/assa-j25.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/25/assa-j25.html

thatlongthrow1 6y ago
> Why is your account just 2 weeks old? It was made then. This was a very dumb question. One that tells more about where the person asking it is coming from than what could possibly be put into the answer itself. What did you expect? "Oh yes I made this account for the purposes of manipulating public opinion about Assange in this specific thread. Muahaha and I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for someone looking at my profile creation date."
jansan 6y ago
1. Why is your account just 2 weeks old? Maybe he created his account two weeks ago? How old was your account two weeks after you created it?
dang 6y ago
New accounts are welcome on HN. Your comment breaks the site guideline against insinuation of astroturfing, shilling, etc. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do that. The rest of your comment is fine.

xorcist 6y ago

Hello fellow concerned citizen! Did you create that throwaway account in anticipation of yesterday's release of this story, or do you keep a stack to pick from?

thatlongthrow1 6y ago
Considering you only comment on my account age I'm assuming you've seen all my comments on my profile page as well. That you cannot address any of the comments and only wish to speak of my account age says volumes about where you are coming from.
- dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style and using HN for ideological battle? You've done these things repeatedly already, and it's not what this site is for. Indeed it's destructive of what the site is for, so we eventually have to ban accounts for doing it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. There are others in this thread arguing both sides of this debate respectfully and within the guidelines, so you needn't look far for good examples.
dang 6y ago
That crosses into personal attack and breaks HN's guideline against insinuations of astroturfing etc. You can't do those things here, regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dontfear 6y ago

He also tweeted this, saying the UFO story by the NY Times was a hoax. But then he deleted it- https://imgur.com/gallery/XubrM3g https://imgur.com/gallery/XubrM3g Despite the Pentagon and Navy’s recent actions, Julian was right — all of this is a sophisticated operation that uses bad actors to perpetuate disinformation. It is probably illegal but concerns national security with China.

twirlock 6y ago

Hey look, it's one of those spooks who actually eats all the spook dog food. Lol!

fwklein 6y ago

And how does that prove the published contents as false?